Baluchistan included in Indo-Pak joint statement.

[jeypore]

Pakistan has greatly made a error by including Baloch into the discussion with India now. Firstly what it does is that the focus is changed from Kashmir to Baloch. So whenever the next meeting happens between the two, if Pakistan does not mention Baloch, it was just a cosmatic for PM Singh blurred out statement to Zardari. And if Pakistan does mention Baloch the focus will be shifted from Kashmir.

I clearly think that India holds upper hand now on any discussion it holds with Pakistan in future. And India will have the ability to shift focus of Pakistan, just like the game Pakistan is playing based on non-state actors.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan has greatly made a error by including Baloch into the discussion with India now. Firstly what it does is that the focus is changed from Kashmir to Baloch. So whenever the next meeting happens between the two, if Pakistan does not mention Baloch, it was just a cosmatic for PM Singh blurred out statement to Zardari. And if Pakistan does mention Baloch the focus will be shifted from Kashmir.

I clearly think that India holds upper hand now on any discussion it holds with Pakistan in future. And India will have the ability to shift focus of Pakistan, just like the game Pakistan is playing based on non-state actors.

If the two sides continue to engage on the issue of Baluchistan, that only further validates Pakistan's accusations against India. When, and if, Baluchistan is discussed, it will be in the context of India sponsoring terrorism in Baluchistan - I am not sure how you can call that a positive issue to have the focus on from India's perspective.

As for the 'shifting of focus' - why would that happen? Pakistan is not going to stop talking about it, nor is the Pakistani military going to move from the LoC and IB to Baluchistan. At the end of the day the inherent assumption is that dialog has to be about Kashmir.

India's meddling in Baluchistan is due to the tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. So if Baluchistan is in the spotlight, the focus automatically falls on Kashmir as well, since Kashmir is the central dispute that drives other events.

 

[jeypore]

India's meddling in Baluchistan is due to the tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. So if Baluchistan is in the spotlight, the focus automatically falls on Kashmir as well, since Kashmir is the central dispute that drives other events.

Not necessarily, that is an assumption taken, not fact. Kashmir is central issue for Pakistan that drives other events, not for India. India can clearly changed the focus by suggesting that a hard evidence has to be provided before any talks can go further, that puts Pakistan in a spotlight to come up with a proof. If Pakistan does, then it has the upper hand, but if it doesn't then the credibility of Kashmir is lost even further, and future statements Pakistan makes will be scrutinized before it can be taken at face value.

Ofcourse we are talking about global perceptions based on accussation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not necessarily, that is an assumption taken, not fact. Kashmir is central issue for Pakistan that drives other events, not for India. India can clearly changed the focus by suggesting that a hard evidence has to be provided before any talks can go further, that puts Pakistan in a spotlight to come up with a proof. If Pakistan does, then it has the upper hand, but if it doesn't then the credibility of Kashmir is lost even further, and future statements Pakistan makes will be scrutinized before it can be taken at face value.

Ofcourse we are talking about global perceptions based on accussation.

If it is an assumption, why would India want to talk about it? If India talks about it and puts the spotlight on it, then that means there is somethign to Paksitani accusations.

If there is some veracity to Paksitani accusations, then the question arises why India is involved in territory that it has no claim to or dispute over?

The answer is that India is involved in Baluchistan because of historic tensions with Pakistan.

What drives those historic tensions?

Kashmir!

Even Siachen is a subset of Kashmir.

India cannot escape Kashmir when it comes to 'dialog over all issues'. Its the elephant in the room.

We don't have trade because .... Kashmir isn't resolved.

We are fighting for influence in Afghanistan because.... Kashmir isn't resolved.

We tested nuclear weapons because ... we had wars over Kashmir.

 

[bandit]

If it is an assumption, why would India want to talk about it? If India talks about it and puts the spotlight on it, then that means there is somethign to Paksitani accusations.

If there is some veracity to Paksitani accusations, then the question arises why India is involved in territory that it has no claim to or dispute over?

The answer is that India is involved in Baluchistan because of historic tensions with Pakistan.

That is not a fact but an assumption. If that logic applies then every country having trouble should blame all those that have ever been at conflict with it. We could blame all the naxal problems on you too.

What drives those historic tensions?

Kashmir!

Even Siachen is a subset of Kashmir.

India cannot escape Kashmir when it comes to 'dialog over all issues'. Its the elephant in the room.

We don't have trade because .... Kashmir isn't resolved.

We are fighting for influence in Afghanistan because.... Kashmir isn't resolved.

We tested nuclear weapons because ... we had wars over Kashmir.

And yet you dropped Kashmir out of the statement.
The Pakistani establishment does not seem to think so. It seems more concerned with terrorism than Kasmir at this point in time. It seems to have realized that flogging a dead horse wont help in its troubles right now.

Kashmir issue no longer seems to be a national priority and thats a good step forward.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is not a fact but an assumption. If that logic applies then every country having trouble should blame all those that have ever been at conflict with it. We could blame all the naxal problems on you too.

If you read the entire exchange I had with jeypore, you would understand the context of that remark.

The point is that Baluchistan only comes into the lime light if it is an issue, and it is only an issue if Indian involvement in Baluchistan is substantiated to a degree that requires the issue to be addressed bilaterally. Otherwise what are the two sides going to discuss on Baluchistan? The nice scenery there?

And yet you dropped Kashmir out of the statement.

Not really - its covered under 'all outstanding issues', and the majority of our 'issues' are directly or indirectly linked to Kashmir.

The Pakistani establishment does not seem to think so. It seems more concerned with terrorism than Kasmir at this point in time. It seems to have realized that flogging a dead horse wont help in its troubles right now.

Kashmir issue no longer seems to be a national priority and thats a good step forward.

Terrorism is a major concern, but Kashmri makes its way into that concern as well since tensions with India, over an unresolved dispute over Kashmir, continue to require that a significant part of the Paksitani military remain focused on the Eastern Front. Therefore even our increased focus on terrorism is tied to Kashmir.

Not to mention the Kashmiri Freedom Fighting groups India would like Pakistan to crack down upon - those groups still enjoy a lot of support in Pakistan, and it would be political suicide for any government to forcefully act against them without any movement on Kashmir, except in cases where guilt in terrorism is clearly established, as might be the case with the 5 arrested LeT members.

In addition, any military action against the groups without movement on Kashmir would drive them underground, perhaps linking them with AQ, Taliban and other sectarian organizations, and then Pakistan has another insurgency on its hands.

I just don't see Kashmir going away - everything ties into it directly or indirectly.

 

[bandit]

Not really - its covered under 'all outstanding issues', and the majority of our 'issues' are directly or indirectly linked to Kashmir.



Terrorism is a major concern, but Kashmri makes its way into that concern as well since tensions with India, over an unresolved dispute over Kashmir, continue to require that a significant part of the Paksitani military remain focused on the Eastern Front. Therefore even our increased focus on terrorism is tied to Kashmir.

Not to mention the Kashmiri Freedom Fighting groups India would like Pakistan to crack down upon - those groups still enjoy a lot of support in Pakistan, and it would be political suicide for any government to forcefully act against them without any movement on Kashmir, except in cases where guilt in terrorism is clearly established, as might be the case with the 5 arrested LeT members.

In addition, any military action against the groups without movement on Kashmir would drive them underground, perhaps linking them with AQ, Taliban and other sectarian organizations, and then Pakistan has another insurgency on its hands.

I just don't see Kashmir going away - everything ties into it directly or indirectly.

If you observe recent trends with the statement coming out of Pakistan, Zardari labeling kashmiri insurgents as terrorists...dropping off Kashmir from the talks and ready to talk when in the past the stand was that there can't be any talks without kashmir in the agenda, there seems to be a growing realization in Pak that there are other issues that need to be resolved and it is not necessary to bring in Kashmir.

Pakistan has been in turmoil for over a decade now, I think they are now pushing towards resolution of disputes they see can be resolved rather than Kashmir which in the current scenario does not come into priorities

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If you observe recent trends with the statement coming out of Pakistan, Zardari labeling kashmiri insurgents as terrorists

I don't think he did that - I understood his reference to apply to the Taliban and the LeT perhaps. Not all the Kashmiri groups are terrorists, and Zardari did not label them all terrorists.

...dropping off Kashmir from the talks and ready to talk when in the past the stand was that there can't be any talks without kashmir in the agenda, there seems to be a growing realization in Pak that there are other issues that need to be resolved and it is not necessary to bring in Kashmir.

But how has Kashmir been dropped from the talks? Pakistan has been calling for a restart of the composite dialog, and the composite dialog was primarily over Kashmir, before the Mumbai attacks.

The joint statement clearly refers to 'all issues', and among those issues Kashmir is the biggest.

Pakistan has been in turmoil for over a decade now, I think they are now pushing towards resolution of disputes they see can be resolved rather than Kashmir which in the current scenario does not come into priorities

How does a lack of focus on Kashmir ease this 'turmoil'?

If your reference is to terrorism, then I must again point out that it is linked to Kashmir, since so long as the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved, or Indian military deployment remains at the levels it is at currently, Pakistan must leave a significant number of its troops on the Eastern Front, when they need to be utilized in the West.

 

[asq]

Pakistanis might have told Million times - but it does not change the fact that - Pakistan is sending terrorists into india ( whole of india, including J&K eg. Mumbai , New Delhi)

What are indians supposed to do - we just returning the favour in baluchistan.

What a false and selfiseving statement, I am really not surprised at statements by Indians, only dismayed, not shocked because our leaders in prepartition India maulana zafar ali Khan, Maulana jauhar, Choudhry Rahamat Ali, A.K. Fazalul haq shwer-e-Bengal, choudhry khaliq uz Zaman and many more told us about dubious minds, cunning ways and about lies of the people they had to deal with, their was no honor, broken promises and shady deals done by Hindu leaders. it was like living with animals like hyenas.

Now i see after talking to Indian on this forum what they really meant.

Too bad for people like Abul kalam azad who believed in Hindus promises and asked Muslims to stay back in India. Resu;lt of staying back in idnia was horible, histoery has proved it.

Now u ask, what Indians are to do.

My answer is. not be kniving, do not break promises, be honorable and most of all tell the straight truth and be part of just solution and not part of problem.

As it stands now India is part of problem as it is acting against all neighborly rules by joins in with Israel and other who are bent on harming us.

Now do not for once think that we the Muslims are worried or concerned, we only want to let you know as a neighbor the rights and wrongs as u are not able to deduct. it is only by your posts we know your mind's working.

To know the whole truth, I invite you to watch these videos.

 

[jeypore]

AgNoStIc MuSliM

If it is an assumption, why would India want to talk about it? If India talks about it and puts the spotlight on it, then that means there is somethign to Paksitani accusations.

First of all, India is not talking about it, Pakistan is. And if India does talks about Baluchistan that does not neccessarly mean that Pakistan accussation are correct, mind you they still have to prove it not only to India but rest of the world. Keep in mind that when Indian embassy in Kabul was bombed, it was backed by two intelligence agency. In order for Pakistan to do the same regarding Baloch movement, it has to provide an additional outside source that will collaborate with GoP, currently you only have couple of think tanks on Pakistan side, not any entities.

The answer is that India is involved in Baluchistan because of historic tensions with Pakistan.

What drives those historic tensions?

Kashmir!

Now again this is the Pakistanie assumption, not India's. Kashmir is the elephant in the room for Pakistan only, if there is no descussion of Kashmir, India is very happy!!!! And that proves my orginal point, that when Baloch is brought in, for good or evil the focus is shifting from Kashmir, and India should happily welcome the new talks on Baloch and keep reiterating very is the Beef for your accussations.

 

[asq]

First of all, India is not talking about it, Pakistan is. And if India does talks about Baluchistan that does not neccessarly mean that Pakistan accussation are correct, mind you they still have to prove it not only to India but rest of the world. Keep in mind that when Indian embassy in Kabul was bombed, it was backed by two intelligence agency. In order for Pakistan to do the same regarding Baloch movement, it has to provide an additional outside source that will collaborate with GoP, currently you only have couple of think tanks on Pakistan side, not any entities.



Now again this is the Pakistanie assumption, not India's. Kashmir is the elephant in the room for Pakistan only, if there is no descussion of Kashmir, India is very happy!!!! And that proves my orginal point, that when Baloch is brought in, for good or evil the focus is shifting from Kashmir, and India should happily welcome the new talks on Baloch and keep reiterating very is the Beef for your accussations.

shifting focus, very satanic and dubious, not dealing with truth and ground reality very mischievous and satanic.

 

[bandit]

I don't think he did that - I understood his reference to apply to the Taliban and the LeT perhaps. Not all the Kashmiri groups are terrorists, and Zardari did not label them all terrorists..

There was no referenceto Taliban or Let...it was for kashmiri terrorists-
Terrorists operating in Kashmir: Zardari

But how has Kashmir been dropped from the talks? Pakistan has been calling for a restart of the composite dialog, and the composite dialog was primarily over Kashmir, before the Mumbai attacks.

The joint statement clearly refers to 'all issues', and among those issues Kashmir is the biggest.
.

IIRC, Pakistan had always demanded Kashmir be the centerpoint of all talks, but now clubbing it with 'all issues' does signal a shift from that stand. The issues highlighted are Mumbai, terrorism and baluchistan, not Kashmir.

Full Text of the statement.
TEXT - India, Pakistan prime ministers' joint statement | Top News | Reuters

How does a lack of focus on Kashmir ease this 'turmoil'?

If your reference is to terrorism, then I must again point out that it is linked to Kashmir, since so long as the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved, or Indian military deployment remains at the levels it is at currently, Pakistan must leave a significant number of its troops on the Eastern Front, when they need to be utilized in the West.

Because Kashmir being the centerpoint on which Pakistan insisted that any talks center around, be it terrorism or terrorist groups.
Now its agreed to act on terrorism with action not contingent on the Kashmir issue. Additionally it creates space for itself by acting on terror with India easing off the diplomatic pressure that has virtually labelled Pakistan as a terrorist haven, and stopping support to balochs if India is doing that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First of all, India is not talking about it, Pakistan is. And if India does talks about Baluchistan that does not neccessarly mean that Pakistan accussation are correct, mind you they still have to prove it not only to India but rest of the world. Keep in mind that when Indian embassy in Kabul was bombed, it was backed by two intelligence agency. In order for Pakistan to do the same regarding Baloch movement, it has to provide an additional outside source that will collaborate with GoP, currently you only have couple of think tanks on Pakistan side, not any entities.

You can't have a conversation with yourself - if the issue comes into the 'limelight' the only reason it will do so is if India and Pakistan both address it.

And if it makes it into bilateral discussions, what exactly is the reason? The only reason to include it in bilateral discussions is if India in some way has something to do with the insurgency there, or can effect it in some way.

We are after all not going to include Baluchistan in talks with Nigeria for example.

Now again this is the Pakistanie assumption, not India's. Kashmir is the elephant in the room for Pakistan only, if there is no descussion of Kashmir, India is very happy!!!! And that proves my orginal point, that when Baloch is brought in, for good or evil the focus is shifting from Kashmir, and India should happily welcome the new talks on Baloch and keep reiterating very is the Beef for your accussations.

What else is there to talk about?

What was the stalled composite dialog based on, before the Mumbai attacks?

And you contradict yourself here - first you say that Pakistan is talking about Baluchistan, but India is not, and now you say that it is good that Baluchistan is brought in, since the focus will shift from Kashmir.

The focus cannot shift if Pakistan is the only one talking, and if both India and Pakistan are discussing the issue, then it goes back to my point of 'what context are they discussing Baluchistan in'?

The only context that makes sense to have bilateral discussions over Baluchistan is Indian involvement or influence over the insurgency in Baluchistan.

So if Baluchistan becomes a major issue to discuss, then the context has to be Indian support for the terrorist organizations there, which then brings up the question of WHY India is alleged to be supporting said terrorist organizations in Baluchistan, which goes to the root of the hostility between India and Pakistan, which is Kashmir.

And Voila! Kashmir is back as the major irritant to regional peace and stability.

 

[asq]

Indian prime minister handed facts proving India is involved in supporting terrorist training in pak and Afghan.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was stunned when Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Reza Gilani handed him a dossier containing photographs of Brahamdagh Bugti and other terrorists meeting Indian agents not only in Afghanistan but also during their visits to India and the names of the Indian officials who met them. This was part of more evidence about India’s involvement in recruiting, training, financing and arming terrorists in Afghanistan and sending them to Pakistan. India’s links to the attack on the Sri Lanka cricket team in Lahore and other high profile terrorism cases have been established, shocking even Indian’s many advocates in Washington. Mr. Gilani gave this surprise to the Indians behind closed doors. Now India fears that Pakistan would use this meeting to expose Indian connections with two anti-Pakistan terrorist leaders and their foreign-funded terror armies: Brahamdagh Bugti and his BLA [Balochistan Liberation Army] and Baitullah Mehsud’s Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, both being supported from bases in US-controlled Afghanistan.

Brahamdagh is based in Kabul and is a familiar face within the defense and intelligence circles in Delhi.

BLA was the name that the former KGB and the Indian intelligence gave to Pakistani communist recruits who were paid to destabilize Pakistan during the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s, when the Soviet Union controlled Afghanistan. The BLA died with the end of the Cold War and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, but has been revived by the Indians after US occupied Afghanistan.

Here is what Christine Fair of RAND Corporation has said earlier this year about what the Indian consulates are up to in Afghanistan and Iran:

“I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan’s regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar–across from Bajaur. Kabul’s motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India’s interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India’s rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan’s near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it — and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan’s control.”

The Foreign Policy magazine also recently confirmed the Indians were neck deep in supporting the TTP in Pakistan:

While the U.S. media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to jihadi elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less often mentioned that India supports insurgent forces attacking Pakistan. “The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” a former intelligence official who served in both countries said. “The same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.”

Afghan officials have also confirmed that India is using Afghanistan to stir trouble in Pakistan.

“India is using Afghan soil to destabilize Pakistan and Afghan security agencies are unable to stop Indian intervention due to absence of centralized government mechanism”, said Afghan Government’s Advisor, Ehsanullah Aryanzai on the sidelines of Pak-Afgan Parliamentary Jirga at a Pakistani hotel on April 2, 2009.

Pressure on the US

The Americans – under heavy pressure in Afghanistan – have started to realize they cannot save face in Afghanistan unless Pakistan’s legitimate concerns with regards to Indian sponsored terrorism are addressed immediately.

A Senior US diplomat William Burns gave Indian officials a terse directive last month, asking them to ’shut down Indian consulates in Afghanistan, reduce presence in Kabul and stop sending terrorists across the Durand Line.’ The message was supplemented with a letter from the American President Barack Obama to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with a similar message.

Whether RAW’s K. C. Verma takes up ISI chief Shuja Pasha’s offer of a one-on-one or not, Pakistan should increase the pressure on the US by declaring neutrality in Afghanistan and block the supply of American and NATO weapons through its soil unless the United States pays heed to its Pakistani ally’s security interests in the region.

 

[afriend]

Including balochistan in the joint statement, may be out of sheer confidence of knowing india has nothing to hide about balochistan, india have literaly taken the issue to a global level. Now the unheard struggle of balochistan freedom shall be focused more.. Many like me didnt even know anything about balochistan before i came tot his forum. So i think gilani have dug his own grave rather by bringing in an internal issue into bilateral relations between india and pakistan.